The Rambam definitely has a consequentialist view of the commandments. He even gives a few times the consequences they are supposed to bring to. This goes along well with the consequentialist theory of political authority. See this paper by Danny Frederick. The reason that a state has authority does not need to be supported by philosophical arguments, (arguments that are often convoluted) . The reason is much more simple than that. The issue is not just human flourishing. The point is that no human good would be possible without a state. We all would be subject to the most sadistic kinds of criminals. Nothing we have, nor our very lives would be safe.
[The consequentialist view of the commandments is from the Gemara itself. There is an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages if we go by the reasons for the commandments or by the letter of the law. R. Shimon Ben Yohai holds we go by the reason. But no one argues if we know the reasons or not. The Gemara assumes point blank that we know the reasons an the reasons are obvious but the question is if we use that reason in applying the law or if we go by the letter of the law.
The argument for the state goes even for states that one does not agree with its laws.
All the more so states that are founded on objective principles of justice like the USA and Israel.
The argument against socialist states is stronger than most people imagine. The issue is not how to justify socialism but rather what are the logical results. Once it can be shown the results are not good then all other arguments for justifying do not matter.
This argument holds for any system that claims superiority over the USA Constitution or the State of Israel. The question that matters is what are the logical results of any system?
[The consequentialist view of the commandments is from the Gemara itself. There is an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages if we go by the reasons for the commandments or by the letter of the law. R. Shimon Ben Yohai holds we go by the reason. But no one argues if we know the reasons or not. The Gemara assumes point blank that we know the reasons an the reasons are obvious but the question is if we use that reason in applying the law or if we go by the letter of the law.
The argument for the state goes even for states that one does not agree with its laws.
All the more so states that are founded on objective principles of justice like the USA and Israel.
The argument against socialist states is stronger than most people imagine. The issue is not how to justify socialism but rather what are the logical results. Once it can be shown the results are not good then all other arguments for justifying do not matter.
This argument holds for any system that claims superiority over the USA Constitution or the State of Israel. The question that matters is what are the logical results of any system?
